In Kyiv this past week, the 21st Annual Meeting of the Yalta European Strategy (YES) brought together more than 800 politicians, diplomats, military officers, business leaders, and activists from over 30 countries to grapple with a question that has haunted Europe for years: how to end the war in Ukraine. With the conflict grinding on, the stakes for Ukraine and the wider continent have never felt higher. The conference, held on September 12-13, 2025, was marked by frank debate, bold proposals, and a sense of urgency that seemed to permeate every discussion.
One of the most striking interventions came from Keith Kellogg, the US President's Special Representative for Ukraine, who declared that "if China completely cut off its aid to Russia, the war would be over tomorrow." According to Kellogg, speaking at the YES meeting, Russia has become a "junior partner" to China, reliant on both economic and military support, and even on aid from North Korea. He argued that Russia’s dependence is so acute that “if Russia were in a good position, they would not have brought in thousands of North Koreans to reclaim their territories from the Ukrainian army.”
Kellogg’s assessment of the battlefield was equally clear-eyed. He insisted that Ukraine now holds the moral high ground and has emerged as a world leader in drone production, even surpassing the United States in some respects. “Ukrainians have become the world leader in drone production,” he said, emphasizing that Ukraine has “significantly reduced the military power of the Russian Federation.” He dismissed the idea that Russia could ultimately win the war, stating, “Ukraine will not lose this war. Ukrainians have a moral superiority over Russia, that is obvious.”
Yet, Kellogg was not alone in believing that outside powers could play a decisive role. The conference heard from a range of Ukrainian leaders, including Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Defence, who outlined what he believes is needed to end the war: “A strong Ukrainian army, more weaponry, deep strike attacks on the Russian territory, destabilizing (Russian military) bases and strong sanctions. This will lead us to the first stage of the end of the war. The end of this war means that the Ukrainian army is so strong that Putin can't continue his aggression, can't repeat his aggression in the future.”
Shmyhal also stressed Ukraine’s adaptation to the demands of modern warfare. “We need to have enough drones, we need to have enough funding to produce these drones. We ask for some artillery, ammunition, but we don't ask for something extraordinary because we have already adapted to this war,” he explained. Ukraine’s technological innovation was a recurring theme, with Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former Deputy Prime Minister, noting, “Just as we underestimate how Ukraine responds to war, we underestimate the impact on what they have done in military innovation over the last few years.”
Indeed, the rapid evolution of drone warfare and the impending revolution in ground-based robotic systems were hot topics. Andriy Biletsky, Commander of the 3rd Corps of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, remarked, “In addition to the ongoing revolution in aerial drones, we are on the verge of another revolution, in my opinion. This is the revolution of ground-based robotic systems, which will radically change the battlefield and replace a significant share of soldiers, both in terms of logistics and combat use.” Yevhen Moysyuk, Deputy Defence Minister, echoed this optimism, predicting that “effective, and sufficiently inexpensive solutions will be developed that can be implemented quickly and on a large scale.”
The conference was not without its hard truths. Sergii Marchenko, Ukraine’s Minister of Finance, laid bare the financial toll of war: “We need more money than previous year, because the war continues. We haven't seen a final stage of this war yet. So we need to prepare, we need to prepare our military, we need to prepare our people to fight for another year of war. So we need money. Our uncovered gap for next year is around 16 billion euro, and it's still counting.”
Security guarantees for Ukraine were fiercely debated. Jimmy Panetta, a member of the US House of Representatives, insisted, “I do believe that when it comes to security guarantees, the US has to be there. The US has to provide the backing or the guarantees that need to be provided.” Igor Zhovkva, Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, outlined the components of such guarantees: a strong Ukrainian army, European boots on the ground, assurances akin to NATO’s Article 5, EU membership, and ongoing sanctions. Hanno Pevkur, Estonia’s Minister of Defence, suggested, “The best security guarantee for Europe today is Ukraine with the strongest army in Europe.”
However, skepticism was voiced by Radoslaw Sikorski, Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, who questioned the credibility of such guarantees: “If there is some kind of peace, the next time Russia tries something against Ukraine we might go to war with Russia. I find that not very credible, because if you want to go to war with Russia, then do it today. And I see no volunteers.”
There was also a sobering reminder from Niall Ferguson of Stanford University about the West’s inconsistent sanctions regime. “The sanctions' regime has failed utterly, partly because no one was serious on either side of the Atlantic about cutting off revenues to Russia from its exports of fossil fuels. But also because of a massive hypocrisy by European states that have continued to export to Russia via third countries.” Ferguson pointed out that while Ukraine relies on fickle democracies, Putin benefits from the steady support of autocracies like China and North Korea.
Throughout the event, questions about victory, defeat, and the future were never far from the surface. Jade McGlynn of King’s College London posed a challenge to Europeans: “The question is not how Ukraine defines victory, but rather how Europe sees it. What do we want in Europe? How do we want this war to end? Do we want Ukraine to win? Do we want Russia to collapse? Is there somewhere in between?”
As the conference drew to a close, the mood was a mixture of resolve and realism. Aleksander Kwaśniewski, former President of Poland, summed up the dilemma: “We cannot end the war because we have Putin, and we have Russia. He is not interested in finding the end of the war. He wants Ukraine to remain in his sphere of influence, and he will try all methods. The main problem is Putin, and the successor of Putin, as this war is supported by Russians. We admire Ukrainian courage. No one expected you to be so brave, so organised, so determined. Kyiv is independent, free and nice for all guests of the world. Your determination is something we need to continue! We need to continue our support and assistance; military, financially and diplomatic.”
For now, the pathway to peace remains elusive, but the YES meeting made one thing clear: the world is watching, and the choices made in the coming months will shape not just Ukraine’s future, but the security of Europe and the global order itself.